What is a Jew?

Great Debates
21

Alessan

Technically correct, I guess, as long as the one parent is the mother.

This is completely false.

If a person is honest with themself, these should be the same.

Sandy Price

There are many things that are legal but which might be outlawed. This is one of the functions of a government. This is to be distinguished from a constitutional right, which cannot be outlawed without a special amendment. To my knowledge, the Supreme Court has not declared partial birth abortions to be a condstitutional right - in fact I believe the Roe vs. Wade decision explicitly states the opposite. So someone who would pass all sorts of laws outlawing this or that, but would try to hide behind the constitution when it comes to partial birth abortion is not sincere or honest. (Not that I know what Lieberman has said about this issue - I am responding to your statement).

Has any candidate ever suggested disobeying the constition or laws of the government due to overriding religious reasons? The discussion generally centers around legal means, as far as I know. What is your point with all this?

22

Chaim, I’m basing my statement less on any deep understanding of Halacha and more on an understanding of Israeli politics. The Ultra-Orthodox parties have never spoken out against abortions, at least in the case of unwed mothers, and believe me - those people do not keep their opinions to themselves. If they don’t like something, they try to legislate against it.

Perhaps the American Orthodox establishment thinks differently. Jews tend to adopt the issues of the societies in which they live.

23

This is also completely false. It may be true that they have never spoken out specifically about abortions to unwed mothers but this is simply because this is not a separate issue. There is no difference between an abortion to an unwed mother and a wedded one.

It is a mistake to confuse what “those people” are struggling for in a given era, with what their beliefs are. There were battles fought about abortion a while ago, but it has long since been won by one side, and has ceased to be a such a hot button issue.

It is also a mistake for you to persist in making statements about “Ultra-Orthodox” Jews, with regard to whom your contempt is matched only by your ignorance

24

Come now, Izzy, you know this isn’t true. It’s the difference between “I believe this is wrong” and “God says this is wrong”. One is opinion; the other is legal interpertation.

25

Alessan:

This could just be because abortion isn’t one of the vocal public issues in Israel like it is in America. I have no doubt that the Israeli Rabbinate is against American-style “abortion-for-any-reason-as-a-right,” but they’re fighting battles on other, louder issues that Americans don’t have to…such as the legitimization of Reform and Conservative clergy, money for the Orthodox education system, Talmudic scholars’ draft deferments, etc. If abortion is an issue that’s debated in the Knesset at all, it’s certainly not as loudly debated there as these other issues, so the Rabbinate’s voice on that issue is less loud as well.

I don’t think they think differently, but I think that the prominence of an issue depends on its prominence in the society they live in.

Chaim Mattis Keller

26

Perhaps this is worthy of its own thread, but FTR, I know nothing of the sort.

I also don’t know what you mean. Are you saying that a person might truly believe that “God says this is wrong” and still maintain that his concience tells him otherwise? Or do you mean that he might go against the official dogma of his religion in deciding what his own religious beliefs are? I suspect the latter, and if that is indeed what you meant, then your wording was a bit misleading. (I would also disagree with the implication regarding Orthodox Jews).

27

Whoa, triple post! Mods?

OK, Izzy, enlighten me - Will Arye Deri manage to regain control of Shas when he gets out of prison, or will Eli Yishai stay in charge? How will the Haredi movement survive the eventual deaths of Ovadia Yosef and harav Kadouri? Will the Ashkenazic courts and Habad continue to distance themselves from mainstream society, or will there be a reapproachment? Is the “feminization” of Haredi society an actual phenomenom? Is Shinui a necessary reaction to Haredi provocation, or a dangerous anti-religious mevement? Will the moderate Orthodox (knitted yamulkes) be able to maintain their identities, or will they be drawn to more extreme ends of the religeous spectrum? What’s your opinion on the worship of tzaddikim? On shmitta? On Neturei Karta and the Satmers?

Izzy, cure my ignorance!

(Still, I have to say - it’s certainly different, seeing a long-time poster on this board defend the Fundies).

28

Alessan

There’s a long way from discussing the question you put forth, full of hypothetical predictions and complex issues, and the clear-cut, open-and-shut issue discussed earlier. What is the purpose of these questions, in the context of this thread? Pardon the suggestion if I’m wrong, but you give the impression that you are merely attempting to toss a bunch of names and slogans out in order to dispel the idea that you are ignorant of these matters. But I’ll take a shot anyway.

I have no idea. Deri has been strengthened by being martyred, but that may fade.

No big deal. There will be new leaders. In any event, the men you mention are not leaders of the Haredim. They are leaders of the religious Sefardim, some (but not most) of whom are also haredim.

To what do you refer by “Ashkenazic courts”? But in general, it takes two to tango, and in this case, it is a matter of some dispute as to who is doing most of the tangoing.

Never heard of it, so I doubt if there is such a thing. You might wish to clarify.

The latter.

More likely the latter.

Depends on the specifics.

Biblical commandment

Fine people with a respectable viewpoint, though not one shared by all. It cannot be stressed enough that there is no monopoly on the term Neturei Karta, and anyone can put out a flier signing with that name. Moshe Hirsch, for example, has no standing at all.

Ditto. Another thing worth stressing is that your knowledge of the viewpoint of these groups, gleaned from secular and antireligious media, is likely even more inaccurate than your knowledge of mainstream Orthodoxy.

29

Actually, I was. I don’t like being called ignorant.

Izzy, you should be aware of the fact that most secular (which does not mean atheist) Israelis regard the Haredim the same way most Americans regard Fundamentalist Christians. In fact, it is the second-greatest issue in Israeli society, and a driving force in politics. Until recently, I used to live and breathe this stuff, and I feel no need to apologize for my point of view. The issue lies in the realm of the political now, not in theological discussion, and I reserve the right to dislike my political opponents.

Still, perhaps we should not discuss this here. I have to remember that I’m a member of a minority now, and minorities need to maintain a united front.

P.S. I was baiting you a bit with the question about Shinui. I voted for them in 99’, and being a moderately religious person, I believe in the former option, not the latter.

30

First, back to the OP’s question, how to define Jewishness, may I suggest: Can you be an atheist and still be Jewish?

Second, Sandy comments: <<Joe Lieberman is being criticized for running for election on a Democratic platform that agrees with the Supreme court that Partial Birth Abortions are legal. He claims to be Orthodox and this would be a break with his faith should he swear his allegiance to the constitution.>>

Let’s not confuse swearing allegiance to the Constitution with vowing undying fealty to every ruling of the Supreme Court as fixed and unchangeable. Under your version of “swearing allegiance”, Sandy, no member of Congress could ever sponsor a Constitutional Amendment! That would be downright silly. I see no inherent contradiction in a person swearing allegiance to the Constitution but working to revise or reform laws, or to amend the Consitution itself.

31

Despite whatever your own views or feelings might be, and however legitimate they are, you should refrain from making declarations about what most Orthodox Jews or Ultra-Orthodox Jews believe, if, as is clearly the case, you are ignorant of these matters, and have only some vague grasp gleaned from the (secular) mass media. Similarly you might wish to hold back your comments about what most Mormons believe, if you are similarly uninformed in this area.

I’d say a lot worse than that. People don’t like having their lifestyle cramped.

32

Since the main question seemed to be focused on late-term abortions, I thought a reality check was in order on the actual position of the candidates:

From this link: http://www.issues2000.org/Candidate_Grid.htm

I couldn’t find a direct quote from Lieberman, but I assume his public position is similar. If so, I don’t see how this position (on the issue of late term abortions only) is incompatible with Joe Lieberman’s Orthodoxy. In fact, I understood that abortion was halachically required in case of serious threat to the mother’s life or health. I also understood that rabbinic authorities typically deferred to medical professionals on what constitutes a threat to health. Early term elective abortion is a separate discussion, but has not been the primary focus of the thread.

Please correct me if my understanding is wrong.

Rick

33

RickG,

Life- Yes. Health - No.

34

Because I’m an idiot and didn’t scroll down in the link I provided. There is information on Lieberman’s specific positions and voting record. He does differ from Gore on the position of parental notification (he supports, Gore opposes). On the whole, his position appears to be that abortion is a matter of personal conscience, and should not, on the whole, be microlegislated.

Izzy, who makes the decision on life vs. health? Is a deterioration of health that may develop into something life threatening, but is not guaranteed to, sufficient grounds to consider the fetus a rodef (pursuer, if am I remembering the term correctly)? And should this be legislated by secular society, or should this be between the woman, her doctor, and, if appropriate, her rabbi or other clergyperson?

And again, to stay with the OP, is Lieberman’s position on this matter incompatible with all Orthodox authorities, or just with some (even a majority)?

Rick

35

Is forcing someone to eat a hamburger murder? It ultimately may develop into a lifethreatening condition. Not to trivialize this issue, but while you are touching on something that may indeed have murky edges, it is incorrect to say that anything that a doctor may declare as a danger to a woman’s health is grounds for an abortion. I think it’s obvious that those who require exceptions for a woman’s health are not asking only for life-threatening situations - if this were the case they could agree to a statute that specified this. A blanket excemption for a woman’s health would make any ban meaningless.

This is independent of the issues discussed until now. Many people, including (evidently) Lieberman, feel that if one granted the fetus a status approaching that of a human life it would justify governmental intervention. For this reason he has found it prudent to try to cloud the position of the Jewish religion regarding this.

I’m not exactly certain just what he has claimed in the name of the Jewish religion and what he claims in the name of Libertarian principles. But the abortion position that his ticket and party support is incompatible with jewish religious law. This is not to say that in the course of thousands of years of writing about the religious laws no one has ever expressed some sentiments which might not be interperated as being supportive of his position. But to say that there is a genuine ambiguity about the subject is like saying there is genuine controversy in the scientific community about whether the HIV virus has anything to do with AIDS. It is simply untrue.

36

Which is why there should be no ban.

37

I can’t remember if it was Buddy Hacket or Alan King who said this but here it is-

*Rabbi: Your children do not speak or write in Hebrew! How will they know they are Jews?

Parent: They know they are Jews because they have heartburn.*

The joke being that the traditional foods for Jews are spicy.

ok, it was funner when he did it. But thats why he is a comedian and I’m a middle management chair-warmer.

Of course nobody talks about all the Cajun Jews. Oy!

38

Sandy Price said:

Do Americans think that his religious doctrine would influence his job of VP that might possibly take an action against Israel? or promote PBA?

It seems that although he may look to his religion for a moral outlook, Liberman tends to remain a politician. Meaning, his opinion concerning abortion differs with most Orthodox halachic authorities of our time and agrees with the Democratic party line.

I believe that although Liberman may first look to the constitution and his party (whether the situation concerns Palestinians or Israel) of course his religion will influence his actions.

39

<< But the abortion position that his ticket and party support is incompatible with jewish religious law. >>

A few reminders, because I think we’ve got a bit off track, as Talmudic discussions often do.

  1. Jewish religious law APPLIES ONLY TO JEWS. It does not apply to non-Jews.

  2. The vast (overwhelmingly vast) majority of the population of the United States are of various Christian denominations. Different Christian denominations take very different perspectives on abortion.

  3. Lieberman’s position, as quoted above, is ABOUT U.S. LAW, not about Jewish religious law.

  4. That opinion says that abortion is a matter of choice and should not be micro-legislated. By inference, that position says that each individual woman may follow the rules of her own religion (or lack thereof).

True, that may lead to different approaches for different people. But the essence is that, under Leiberman’s position as I understand it, an Orthodox Jewish woman would be free to follow Orthodox Jewish law. A Catholic woman would be free to follow her religious beliefs. A Baptist, Lutheran, Methodist, Episbetarian, LDS, LSD, Scorpio, or Hari Krishna could all follow the rules of their own faiths.

This does not seem to me, IN ANY WAY, to be contrary to Jewish law. Quite the opposite, this seems to me to be perfectly compatible with Jewish law: that is, U.S. law would say that it is permissible that Jews follow Jewish law in this regard.

As I understand Catholic law, abortion is never permitted, not even if the woman’s life in jeopardy; since the woman has been baptised but the baby has not, it is more important to save the soul of the baby than that of the woman (whose soul is already saved.) If this were the law of the land, then Jews would be prohibited from following THEIR laws, which put the life of the woman ahead of the life of the baby since the woman is already alive and the baby is only potential life.

It thus seems to me that the only way to ensure that people of any religion can practice their own rules is to leave the question up to the individual (and her doctor).

(ASIDE: I believe that the opinions on Jewish law that have been expressed so far in this thread are primarily those of Orthodoxy; Conservative and Reform take a broader approach in the definition of when abortions are permitted.)

[Edited by CKDextHavn on 10-25-2000 at 09:13 AM]

40

CKDextHavn:

While I agree with you regarding the distinction between religious law and secular law, I’d say abortion is a bit of a gray area, because to some degree it’s a question of fact, not a question of law.

For example, no Orthodox Jewish politician would ever attempt to legislate that everyone eat Kosher.

However, anti-abortion legislation would not be a separate law from the already-existing murder/manslaughter laws, which exist on a secular basis. What it would do is establish the definition of human life. In that regard, Judaism is a bit ambiguous, so instead, I’ll use a Catholic politician as an example. If a Catholic believes, with all his heart, that a soul exists in zygote tissue beginning from the moment of conception, can he in good conscience separate this religious definition from the existing secular laws against murder? Abortion isn’t an additional religious stricture, such as eating Kosher. It’s the extent of the scope of an existing law.

Obviously, some politicians feel that they can do so. I’m merely pointing out that abortion is slightly different in its nature from other religious laws.

Chaim Mattis Keller